The Sudden Love For Vintage Diamonds

[OoohShiny]

I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?

Golaconda rough, no way that exists anymore.

If you are really rich you could track down an auction for those famous "Blue Whites" but you'd have to knock over a bank or museum to get one.

Or go to the louvre to see the regent.

This is a noob question and probably off topic, but what was the big deal with this Type IIa stuff?

I recall it's rare and somehow 'better' than other diamonds due to either an absence or an addition of certain compounds within it, but I can't remember now...

 

[FrekeChild]

I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?

Golaconda rough, no way that exists anymore.

If you are really rich you could track down an auction for those famous "Blue Whites" but you'd have to knock over a bank or museum to get one.

Or go to the louvre to see the regent.

This is a noob question and probably off topic, but what was the big deal with this Type IIa stuff?

I recall it's rare and somehow 'better' than other diamonds due to either an absence or an addition of certain compounds within it, but I can't remember now...

From Wikipedia:

Type IIa diamonds make up 1–2% of all natural diamonds (1.8% of gem diamonds). These diamonds are almost or entirely devoid of impurities, and consequently are usually colourless and have the highest thermal conductivity. They are very transparent in ultraviolet, down to 230 nm. Occasionally, while Type IIa diamonds are being extruded towards the surface of the Earth, the pressure and tension can cause structural anomalies arising through plastic deformation during the growth of the tetrahedral crystal structure, leading to imperfections. These imperfections can confer a yellow, brown, orange, pink, red, or purple colour to the gem. Type IIa diamonds can have their structural deformations "repaired" via a high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) process, removing much or all of the diamond's color.[7] Type IIa diamonds constitute a great percentage of Australian production. Many large famous diamonds, e.g. Cullinan and Koh-i-Noor, are Type IIa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_type

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golkonda

 

[Laila619]

This will sound blunt, but why does it matter to you if some people like and want to buy vintage diamonds?

Actually, it doesn't sound blunt. It sounds hostile.

Sorry you feel that way. It's an honest question since you started the topic. And you did imply that people are blind to the emperor not wearing any clothes, etc.

There are a lot of beautiful antique diamonds with lovely light return. They are by no means inferior diamonds.

First of all I will start with with a quotation I have used on Pricescope before. Even if it was an "honest" question, as Jane Austen said, "Honesty is a much overrated virtue".

Second of all, since when do we ask why someone poses a question on RockTalky? if we are going to start asking why everyone asks the questions they do on RockyTalky, why start with me unless you don't like my question and the things that I am saying?

Some of your negative feelings about what I posted leaked out above when you said that I had "started this topic" as if I had committed a crime by so doing and implied that by using the metaphor of the Emperor having no clothes that I had done something equally heinous. How was I at fault by doing either thing? You are hiding behind the "honest question" to defend the statement you wrote below:


"There are a lot of beautiful antique diamonds with lovely light return. They are by no means inferior diamonds."

You couldn't bear to have someone even discuss the topic of whether vintage cuts were being sold because the price of diamonds went up!!!

So no, I don't believe you asked an "honest question". Maybe you thought you did. But maybe you were fooling yourself about your unconscious motives.

I don't mind "blunt" at all. I dislike "hostile", however. "Hostile" parades as honest but is really angry and vituperative underneath the surface.

AGBF

Wow. You are the hostile one here. As for the underlined, I couldn't "bear to have someone discuss the topic" as though it were agony for me? That's silly, it's DIAMONDS, it's not a serious life or death situation. Have a nice evening.

 

[nala]

I am the proud owner of an OMC. Prior to that, I owned a few OEC's and OEC diamond bands. Prior to PS, I owned no jewelry. Did PS turn me on to old cuts? Yes. Without PS, I would not have been able to distinguish and old cut from a mrb bc that is how ignorant I was.
My jeweler, who came before PS, has always knocked old cuts and has devalued them, leaving me to shop for them at estate stores, At one point, I wanted to trade in my mrb for a bigger OEC, but my hubby didn't allow me. Echoing my jeweler's thoughts, he said it would be a downgrade. I have since shown him a range of old cuts, and now he thinks they are cool--but still doesn't agree that I should give up my mrb.
I guess that what I am getting at is that old cuts are an acquired taste, or at least, for me they are. The fact that they are not valued by the multitudes makes them great deals and for me, that is a plus! I love wearing mine and losing myself in the facets! On the other hand, i am sad to say that I don't know anyone else who owns one, and am deprived of that eye candy.

 

[maccers]

Hi Deb,
This has been an interesting read so far, thank you for starting this thread.

Could you please expand on the idea that the increasing popularity of antique cuts started within the diamond industry? This may be a poor analogy but a lot of fashion trends actually start 'on the street' as it were, could the same not be said of antique cuts? I'm new to diamonds and PS so I realize I am missing some of the history. I was under the impression that vendors responded to the trend of antique cuts with THEIR branded version of antique cuts (eg avc, avr, canera etc). These branded cuts, as you know, come at a premium.

Also fwiw, I don't read Laila's original post as containing hostility. Just a short and blunt question. I have a tendency to write like that but while on PS, I try to 'Flower up' my posts lest they be misconstrued.

 

[AGBF]

I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?

Golaconda rough, no way that exists anymore.

If you are really rich you could track down an auction for those famous "Blue Whites" but you'd have to knock over a bank or museum to get one.

Or go to the louvre to see the regent.

This is a noob question and probably off topic, but what was the big deal with this Type IIa stuff?

I recall it's rare and somehow 'better' than other diamonds due to either an absence or an addition of certain compounds within it, but I can't remember now...

At one point I was keeping a fairly exhaustive list of threads that had been posted on Pricescope about Golconda diamonds, with which I have been fascinated for years. I am afraid I lost it. Here is a partial list, however:

What Are Golconda Diamonds?...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-are-golconda-diamonds.33045/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-are-golconda-diamonds.33045/[/URL]
Does Anybody Buy D Colors Anymore?...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-anybody-buy-d-colors-anymore.10255/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-anybody-buy-d-colors-anymore.10255/[/URL]
Golconda Diamond???...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamond.23525/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamond.23525/[/URL]
**Golconda Diamonds**...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamonds.192529/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamonds.192529/[/URL]

AGBF

 

[CharmyPoo]

For an erring diamond, I have always liked higher colors and that still holds true. I have never been a fan of MRBs (unless they have fat arrows) and I really fell in love with the first OEC I bought. After that, I spent a heck of a long time to find a nice OEC in a high color - I looked at 50+ OECs and only found maybe 3 that I loved. It would have been a lot easier if I bought a MRB and the time I spent looking for an OEC may have been worth more than the cost savings. So for myself, going old cut was not about money but around how the diamond looks.

 

[ccuheartnurse]

Hi Karl...

Thank you for your explanation. Was helpful to me. Pricsecope was under a lot of flux & really, a lot of poop slinging for the experts that had to defend why their stones had the best Firescope, Brilliantscope, IS, ASET....etc. All detailing the ** best to determine light leakage". So where did the jump occur for vintage cuts? 5 yrs ago? When? And how did it lead to almost every sponsor here having their own vintage cut. I don't recall reading screaming matches threads about the virtues of one vendors old world cushions better than the other & a 20 page, 2 week thread about just one aspect of that. So..I'm confused. When did the shift happen?


I agrees with Chrono... would be nice to have the experts, whom have not been named, but you know who the front runners are. Maybe someone can take some time to highlight some of the changes that have occurred going towards buying vintage.

And for those having issues with this thread, move on & don't answer. Its simple. No one needs to get their feathers ruffled. It is after all, a forum on jewellery discussion.

 

[AGBF]

Could you please expand on the idea that the increasing popularity of antique cuts started within the diamond industry? This may be a poor analogy but a lot of fashion trends actually start 'on the street' as it were, could the same not be said of antique cuts?

I do not really have any idea where the trend towards vintage cuts began. It may have been with consumers; with vendors; or in some relationship between the two.

The issue that has irked me and which made me start this thread was not that consumers turned from preferring round brilliants to preferring vintage cuts. (Not that all consumers have, of course.) The issue that irked me was not even that a few diamond merchants went into a smoky room and conspired to push vintage cuts over round brilliants. (It may have crossed their minds that this could be an alternate strategy if sales ever fell, but sales are not falling. Sales in China and India are wonderful. So this isn't the only way that they could make money selling diamonds.)

The issue that has irked me is that many of the diamond vendors selling right here in the United States to us were touting their scopes and discussing light leakage and scaring every new young man who came in here looking for a diamond with which to get engaged lest a diamond he picked didn't turn the correct color on a machine. They were monopolizing the many diamond boards that used to exist on the Internet. And now they are silent as consumers say that vintage stones with unmeasured light return are gorgeous.

Why can vintage diamonds be gorgeous with no light return while round brilliants have to go through all kinds of machines? What has happened, I asked? And I postulated that diamond prices rose. Actually, I quoted some other Pricescopers like Karl, as saying that diamond prices rose. So the merchants decided to sell bigger, lower color stones.

And I can believe that they (vintage stones) are not all ugly. Why should they be?

AGBF

 

[Karl_K]

Hi Karl...

Thank you for your explanation. Was helpful to me. Pricsecope was under a lot of flux & really, a lot of poop slinging for the experts that had to defend why their stones had the best Firescope, Brilliantscope, IS, ASET....etc. All detailing the ** best to determine light leakage". So where did the jump occur for vintage cuts? 5 yrs ago? When? And how did it lead to almost every sponsor here having their own vintage cut. I don't recall reading screaming matches threads about the virtues of one vendors old world cushions better than the other & a 20 page, 2 week thread about just one aspect of that. So..I'm confused. When did the shift happen?

I am not a date person so asking me when something happened is not something I am good at answering.
There was way too much fighting going on between vendors back in the old days and it got worse and worse so rules were implemented they could not comment on another vendors products and the vendor rules were strengthened and enforced.

The rise of vintage is industry wide PS consumers were early adopters but now oec cuts and many modern versions of classic cushions are selling on Round Rap where they used to sell on I believe pear and other fancy rap which is a lower level(it may have been one of the other lower levels). So the entire industry has noticed the consumer interest and the pricing has followed up.
They are no longer considered inferior by RAP.

Why you see so many different cuts it has to do with the cut throat pricing on the internet with rounds and princess cuts by the large wholesalers retails wings and Blue Nile.
It is very very hard for a smaller player to stay honest and make a living selling even high end rounds these days. That means better price for consumers but it is hard on vendors.
So they have to offer something the bigger players are not to survive long term.

Improved cutting has made the lower end high precision round market open to the high volume players that used to be open mostly to specialty shops like WF, GOG, Wink and others.
The very top of the high end market is still more of a specialist area but the competition is pushing prices down. Being just H&A and AGS0 with a few pictures and decent customer service isn't enough to put a vendor into decent by online diamonds standards profit margins anymore.

Another difference from the old days a lot of the easy things of diamond cut research are somewhat settled the next steps are more complex but built on the older knowledge sometimes replacing it with better information. AGS and GIA cut grading has killed any interest in working with RB. If you design a better RB and it don't get gia EX or ags0 it is not going to sell so why spend the time?
The same is true of fancies with many asking does it get ags0? AGS will work with people to get the 0 so its not all bad, until you run into a disagreement with their grading philosophy which has a lot of flaws with fancies.

Sheesh that's a Sir John length answer but it isn't just one factor driving things but many and I just barely scratched the surface.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Hi Karl...

Thank you for your explanation. Was helpful to me. Pricsecope was under a lot of flux & really, a lot of poop slinging for the experts that had to defend why their stones had the best Firescope, Brilliantscope, IS, ASET....etc. All detailing the ** best to determine light leakage". So where did the jump occur for vintage cuts? 5 yrs ago? When? And how did it lead to almost every sponsor here having their own vintage cut. I don't recall reading screaming matches threads about the virtues of one vendors old world cushions better than the other & a 20 page, 2 week thread about just one aspect of that. So..I'm confused. When did the shift happen?


I agrees with Chrono... would be nice to have the experts, whom have not been named, but you know who the front runners are. Maybe someone can take some time to highlight some of the changes that have occurred going towards buying vintage.

And for those having issues with this thread, move on & don't answer. Its simple. No one needs to get their feathers ruffled. It is after all, a forum on jewellery discussion.

This bolded part just isn't true, in my opinion. Of the big PS superideal cut sellers...WhiteFlash, Brian Gavin, Infinity, and Good Old Gold, GOG is the only one and really the first vendor here to design an ideal cut antique cushion and later an OEC style round. They have always specialized in carrying a variety of well cut stones (and they will source and do light performance tests on antique stones, too). The others all still mainly specialize in ideal cut rounds and princess cuts (and BG has a modern cushion).

Victor Canera is primarily a high end jewelry maker and began selling diamonds at some point, and he has a small selection of antique cushion and OEC stones cut with great light performance that he has specially cut for his line.

For several years ERD and Leon M have sourced new old-style cuts on a small scale, but in general, these are not as well cut as those previously mentioned. They are not as popular here as true antiques or the new ideal cut antique style stones.

So really, newly (ideal/ex) cut antique style stones are very rare in the overall scheme of things.

You don't see the vendors arguing over this because they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Badmouthing another vendor's products isn't going to benefit the one who does it, and it probably isn't allowed anyway. The ones selling modern ideal cut stones also aren't going to come here and put down antique stones because that is not their market. They sell to those who want ideal cut stones and seek them out. Buyers who want antique stones know where to look, too.

There have been old cuts on here as long as I have been here, but I supposed the big shift for long time PS members to go to antique cuts gradually evolved over the last 3-5 years, maybe. It would be interesting to trace, actually. As more and more beautiful OEC's were posted, more people fell in love with them. I think Jonathan at Good Old Gold saw that there was a desire from some to have well cut antique style stones because well cut true antiques are not so easy to come by. So he designed the AVC and later the AVR/OEC. I looked at them for a couple of years because I didn't see one that met the specs I wanted. I also considered antique stones, but I needed a great cut that didn't have a very thin girdle, and like Charmy, I didn't want a color lower than H-I for an e-ring. So that really limited my options for an antique OEC. Therefore, in May 2013, I got my 2.3 ct AVR from GOG. But it actually was not a new love for me. I loved antique style jewelry for years before I ever came to PS. I just didn't have access to diamonds of this quality.

Just remember that this is a PS phenomenon mostly involving active members here despite the fact that Karl said that the demand for old cuts has gone up industry wide. Most guys coming here for e-rings are still mostly looking for modern round brilliants or princess cuts, and occasionally a cushion, asscher, emerald cut, or oval. We help them find those, and I still recommend ideal cut modern rounds all the time. A small percentage are coming here looking for antique stones or newly cut antique style stones.

 

[arkieb1]

I think the same could be said for cushions in general. 10 years ago RBs were king everyone wanted one and you are right to some degree in the next few years Ideals, Super Ideals and so on became more well known about and therefore pushed and more popular. In the last 5/6 years there has been a marked increase in the number of people on here and vendors selling cushion. And responding to that market the rise of better cut modern cushions (x-factor cushions, Leons cushions, GOGs huge range of custom cut cushions etc) and antique ones.

More recently OECs have become popular as well and again the rise of sales of genuine ones and more precisely cut ones to fill that demand.

 

[apacherose]

Well... interesting topic!

I think it is just fashion trends, and personal taste... some folks love antiques and old cars and shabby chic. I like vintage-y things, my kids all have darling 'old fashioned' names that were unheard of by myself growing up except for my great aunts and uncles yet they are not at all uncommon names now, as it is just a trendy, cyclical phenomenon.

I have dragged my husband over to the estate cases in the jewelry stores since before we were married -last century, lol. I never swooned over my mothers near 1ct " blue D IF" (according to her) in a six prong solitaire, I loved the estate diamonds and settings. I remember researching the 'old miners' and 'old europeans' that the jeweler said were the ones I liked.

Last year my Dad bought my mother a ring- from his jeweler friend (oh no! ) Well it is a band with two rows of hearts on fire diamonds- I never saw such sparkly gorgeousness in my whole life. Had my mother's solitaire been a 'hearts on fire' I think I may well have been a classic round solitaire girl after all, lol. Looked up 'hearts on fire' and enter the whole world of learning about cut and light return in diamonds.

There is this huge divide between someone like my mother, and even husband, who have the notion of a diamond being ultra-white as the only desirable or beautiful jewel, and someone like myself, who finds diamonds beautiful in many color grades... and also 'not' in all kinds of color grades, as well.

My concern is this- when someone spends a significant amount of money on a mid-range color diamond, are they still getting the same commodity for their money as if they spent the same amount on a smaller, more colorless diamond? Assuming equal cut quality. Are the lower colors now falsely inflated, is my question, or, are they just as sound a purchase as a colorless diamond? Another way of asking my question- if I spend my money on a 1ct K Si1 instead of the similarly priced smaller F VS1- is the K inflated? Twenty years from now, even though the actual price may change, will the larger K and smaller F have the same equivalent price as they do today?

Please forgive me if I did not articulate my question in an intelligible manner....

 

[OoohShiny]

I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?

Golaconda rough, no way that exists anymore.

If you are really rich you could track down an auction for those famous "Blue Whites" but you'd have to knock over a bank or museum to get one.

Or go to the louvre to see the regent.

This is a noob question and probably off topic, but what was the big deal with this Type IIa stuff?

I recall it's rare and somehow 'better' than other diamonds due to either an absence or an addition of certain compounds within it, but I can't remember now...

From Wikipedia:

Type IIa diamonds make up 1–2% of all natural diamonds (1.8% of gem diamonds). These diamonds are almost or entirely devoid of impurities, and consequently are usually colourless and have the highest thermal conductivity. They are very transparent in ultraviolet, down to 230 nm. Occasionally, while Type IIa diamonds are being extruded towards the surface of the Earth, the pressure and tension can cause structural anomalies arising through plastic deformation during the growth of the tetrahedral crystal structure, leading to imperfections. These imperfections can confer a yellow, brown, orange, pink, red, or purple colour to the gem. Type IIa diamonds can have their structural deformations "repaired" via a high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) process, removing much or all of the diamond's color.[7] Type IIa diamonds constitute a great percentage of Australian production. Many large famous diamonds, e.g. Cullinan and Koh-i-Noor, are Type IIa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_type

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golkonda

I don't know much about vintage cuts, but what I'm wondering is it the allure of the faceting pattern and/or a combination of that AND the fact many are "warmer" colors allowing one to buy a larger diamond? If it is the faceting pattern that they love, has anyone bought a vintage cut graded say D-VVS2 that was cut from type IIa rough?

Golaconda rough, no way that exists anymore.

If you are really rich you could track down an auction for those famous "Blue Whites" but you'd have to knock over a bank or museum to get one.

Or go to the louvre to see the regent.

This is a noob question and probably off topic, but what was the big deal with this Type IIa stuff?

I recall it's rare and somehow 'better' than other diamonds due to either an absence or an addition of certain compounds within it, but I can't remember now...

At one point I was keeping a fairly exhaustive list of threads that had been posted on Pricescope about Golconda diamonds, with which I have been fascinated for years. I am afraid I lost it. Here is a partial list, however:

What Are Golconda Diamonds?...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-are-golconda-diamonds.33045/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-are-golconda-diamonds.33045/[/URL]
Does Anybody Buy D Colors Anymore?...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-anybody-buy-d-colors-anymore.10255/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-anybody-buy-d-colors-anymore.10255/[/URL]
Golconda Diamond???...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamond.23525/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamond.23525/[/URL]
**Golconda Diamonds**...[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamonds.192529/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/golconda-diamonds.192529/[/URL]

AGBF

Awesome, thank very much, both

My concern is this- when someone spends a significant amount of money on a mid-range color diamond, are they still getting the same commodity for their money as if they spent the same amount on a smaller, more colorless diamond? Assuming equal cut quality. Are the lower colors now falsely inflated, is my question, or, are they just as sound a purchase as a colorless diamond? Another way of asking my question- if I spend my money on a 1ct K Si1 instead of the similarly priced smaller F VS1- is the K inflated? Twenty years from now, even though the actual price may change, will the larger K and smaller F have the same equivalent price as they do today?

Please forgive me if I did not articulate my question in an intelligible manner....

I think I understand what you're saying - basically, are buyers of lower colours going to get stung in the future because right now they are a trend (and priced accordingly) but in the future they might revert to previous levels of desirability - i.e. will they end up being undesireable again in the future and therefore lose their value?

 

[missy]

My concern is this- when someone spends a significant amount of money on a mid-range color diamond, are they still getting the same commodity for their money as if they spent the same amount on a smaller, more colorless diamond? Assuming equal cut quality. Are the lower colors now falsely inflated, is my question, or, are they just as sound a purchase as a colorless diamond? Another way of asking my question- if I spend my money on a 1ct K Si1 instead of the similarly priced smaller F VS1- is the K inflated? Twenty years from now, even though the actual price may change, will the larger K and smaller F have the same equivalent price as they do today?

Please forgive me if I did not articulate my question in an intelligible manner....

I think I understand what you're saying - basically, are buyers of lower colours going to get stung in the future because right now they are a trend (and priced accordingly) but in the future they might revert to previous levels of desirability - i.e. will they end up being undesireable again in the future and therefore lose their value?

I understand what you guys are saying however I ask you this. Do you buy jewelry for your enjoyment or with also thinking ahead to resale? And that is key here IMO.

Personally, I only buy for me and for my aesthetic preferences. I don't care a whit about resale of jewelry. It's not like real estate where most purchase with an eye towards future resale and where you can make a big profit. Sure perhaps you can with some jewelry pieces but that's not the norm.

I buy only with the thought do I love this piece, is it beautiful to me and will I enjoy wearing it and can I afford it and is it what I consider to be a fair price. I never think am I going to get my money back. Of course it is a plus that some vendors do give you a fair trade in value if you decide to "upgrade" or even do an "equal" switch. But that's never foremost in my mind.

Like others here I find great beauty in antique cuts and most specifically OEC's. For me they can never compare to "modern" round cuts because I just don't find them as interesting or as beautiful.

 

[diagem]

Late to this thread but here are my 2c's....

Two different cutting philosophies, methods and products.
One is precision cutting, obviously a process worth pursuing which we still are in its infancy. The potential is enormous but it takes much more than is currently being practiced. I am not talking about RB's only but about most fancy shapes as well. As we are talking about the most valuable material, I believe the value however costly to achieve is well worth it's while if executed correctly.
Antique cuts on the other hand are also not as simple as one might think.
Most newly antique cuts are a simple faceting application to its Historic simplicity using modern technology. Truth is, there is much more to it...
Antique cuts enjoy small patina nuances which bring out their Historic feel and unique visual characteristics. These nuances are not found on most modern antique replicas produced today.
These nuances come with a lot of education (as with everything else) and genuinely understanding the History of cutting and how it evolved in the past hundreds of years.

 

[Circe]

My concern is this- when someone spends a significant amount of money on a mid-range color diamond, are they still getting the same commodity for their money as if they spent the same amount on a smaller, more colorless diamond? Assuming equal cut quality. Are the lower colors now falsely inflated, is my question, or, are they just as sound a purchase as a colorless diamond? Another way of asking my question- if I spend my money on a 1ct K Si1 instead of the similarly priced smaller F VS1- is the K inflated? Twenty years from now, even though the actual price may change, will the larger K and smaller F have the same equivalent price as they do today?

Please forgive me if I did not articulate my question in an intelligible manner....

I think I understand what you're saying - basically, are buyers of lower colours going to get stung in the future because right now they are a trend (and priced accordingly) but in the future they might revert to previous levels of desirability - i.e. will they end up being undesireable again in the future and therefore lose their value?

A) ditto Missy

B) oh how I wish there was a Rap archive so we could get some reliable data points! But there isn't (at least not one going back to its inception available to consumers), so we'll have to wait for someone like Wink to come along and tell us how things have changed, so we can extrapolate how they might change in the future.

D) if this is a realistic possibility - and I don't think it is, as warm colors are still exponentially less expensive than their colorless counterparts - it's not like that's limited to them. We could as reasonably extrapolate that ideal cuts will get much cheaper as the technology to cut them spreads. Ideal cuts are getting more common: antiques, quite the opposite. And it's not like that potentiality is limited to low colors or old cuts ... think of the 70s, when the "investment" craze inflated the cost of diamonds violently, just in time to leave their buyers holding the bag, incapable of selling their stones for even a fraction of what they paid.

D) ditto DS and co: don't buy a diamond expecting to see your money back! If you anticipate a desire to change, go to someone with a good upgrade policy. And I'm saying that as someone currently trying to sell a stone ... not because I've fallen out of love with the cut, but because it picked up some negative associations during my refurb debacle, and I'd like to be able to look at what was bought as a sentimental piece with wholly positive feelings. I bought second hand, so I can afford to sell without taking a massive hit (still haven't, but hey, I'm patient ... and my worst case scenario is that I eventually outweigh one set of memories with the ones intervening). Under other circumstances, I'd either have to live with it, or resign myself to taking a loss of 50% or more. And that's with market forces working in my favor! Definitely better - to come full circle - to ditto Missy again, and say buy what you love, and not with an eye to recouping value.

 

[chrono]

Both have different flavours; the old cuts have a slower scintillation rate, bigger facets for bigger flash and more fire than white light return. I don't think that it's a sudden love, only that more exposure and access to this type of stone has allowed it to reach more budding fans.

 

[Circe]

DiaGem, thank you for such an informative post!

 

[artdecolover71]

I love them also for the very simple fact MOST PEOPLE don't have them and for me, that is a huge piece-I love "different". I have never had a traditional MRB and never will...though I know they are still the #1 choice for rings. I walk to my own drummer

 

[ericad]

Could you please expand on the idea that the increasing popularity of antique cuts started within the diamond industry? This may be a poor analogy but a lot of fashion trends actually start 'on the street' as it were, could the same not be said of antique cuts?

I do not really have any idea where the trend towards vintage cuts began. It may have been with consumers; with vendors; or in some relationship between the two.

The issue that has irked me and which made me start this thread was not that consumers turned from preferring round brilliants to preferring vintage cuts. (Not that all consumers have, of course.) The issue that irked me was not even that a few diamond merchants went into a smoky room and conspired to push vintage cuts over round brilliants. (It may have crossed their minds that this could be an alternate strategy if sales ever fell, but sales are not falling. Sales in China and India are wonderful. So this isn't the only way that they could make money selling diamonds.)

The issue that has irked me is that many of the diamond vendors selling right here in the United States to us were touting their scopes and discussing light leakage and scaring every new young man who came in here looking for a diamond with which to get engaged lest a diamond he picked didn't turn the correct color on a machine. They were monopolizing the many diamond boards that used to exist on the Internet. And now they are silent as consumers say that vintage stones with unmeasured light return are gorgeous.

Why can vintage diamonds be gorgeous with no light return while round brilliants have to go through all kinds of machines? What has happened, I asked? And I postulated that diamond prices rose. Actually, I quoted some other Pricescopers like Karl, as saying that diamond prices rose. So the merchants decided to sell bigger, lower color stones.

And I can believe that they (vintage stones) are not all ugly. Why should they be?

AGBF

The two bolded statements are where you're gonna lose a lot of people. They are inflammatory exaggerations, and it's generally not productive to try to have a conversation with someone who has already made up her mind that people's love of old cuts is part of a trade-wide conspiracy, and that old cuts offer zero light return.

I understand that your point is with regards to RB's and the movement towards light return as a measure of beauty, and the potential ulterior motives of dealers in general, but perhaps a more approachable way to ask the question is:

Why does light return matter so much for RB's, to the point of being critical in the selection process, yet genuine old cuts (excludes modern precision cuts) seem to be immune to the same light return criteria? Should consumers demand light return analysis for old cuts too, or do we need to reevaluate our zeal with regards to light return analysis on RB's?

See what I did there?

And my response to that question would be that maximum light return is not the only measure of beauty, and by applying it as a selection criteria for old cuts would be a great disservice to consumers because the beauty of an old cut is not balanced upon light return, but a combination of structure, light return, shape, and many other factors. If max light return was a significant measure of beauty for old cuts, people would only buy AV's and other new precision repro stones. Yet there are many who have seen both and PREFER the antique stones, even with increased leakage and lower symmetry/precision. Their appeal is impossible to quantify. And that's ok.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Late to this thread but here are my 2c's....

Two different cutting philosophies, methods and products.
One is precision cutting, obviously a process worth pursuing which we still are in its infancy. The potential is enormous but it takes much more than is currently being practiced. I am not talking about RB's only but about most fancy shapes as well. As we are talking about the most valuable material, I believe the value however costly to achieve is well worth it's while if executed correctly.
Antique cuts on the other hand are also not as simple as one might think.
Most newly antique cuts are a simple faceting application to its Historic simplicity using modern technology. Truth is, there is much more to it...
Antique cuts enjoy small patina nuances which bring out their Historic feel and unique visual characteristics. These nuances are not found on most modern antique replicas produced today.
These nuances come with a lot of education (as with everything else) and genuinely understanding the History of cutting and how it evolved in the past hundreds of years.

....and this explains why it is a real privilege to have an antique style stone cut by Yoram.

 

[ericad]

Late to this thread but here are my 2c's....

Two different cutting philosophies, methods and products.
One is precision cutting, obviously a process worth pursuing which we still are in its infancy. The potential is enormous but it takes much more than is currently being practiced. I am not talking about RB's only but about most fancy shapes as well. As we are talking about the most valuable material, I believe the value however costly to achieve is well worth it's while if executed correctly.
Antique cuts on the other hand are also not as simple as one might think.
Most newly antique cuts are a simple faceting application to its Historic simplicity using modern technology. Truth is, there is much more to it...
Antique cuts enjoy small patina nuances which bring out their Historic feel and unique visual characteristics. These nuances are not found on most modern antique replicas produced today.
These nuances come with a lot of education (as with everything else) and genuinely understanding the History of cutting and how it evolved in the past hundreds of years.

....and this explains why it is a real privilege to have an antique style stone cut by Yoram.

For those who desire and require precision and modern technology, yes. And there are still others who have seen both old and new in person and prefer the old. It's wonderful that consumers have all options available to them, and a place like PS to learn about the possibilities and choose what speaks to them.

 

[chrono]

Why does light return matter so much for RB's, to the point of being critical in the selection process, yet genuine old cuts (excludes modern precision cuts) seem to be immune to the same light return criteria? Should consumers demand light return analysis for old cuts too, or do we need to reevaluate our zeal with regards to light return analysis on RB's?

I like the way the question is posed here; it is clear, neutral and to the point. That said, I did view my OEC with an IS to make my final selection so I am particular about light return in addition to the pattern and other nuances of old cut stones. I think it would be beneficial to demand light return analysis for old cut stones, only that it will have a different set of "ideal" than other types of RB, due to its cutting style.

 

[ericad]

Why does light return matter so much for RB's, to the point of being critical in the selection process, yet genuine old cuts (excludes modern precision cuts) seem to be immune to the same light return criteria? Should consumers demand light return analysis for old cuts too, or do we need to reevaluate our zeal with regards to light return analysis on RB's?

I like the way the question is posed here; it is clear, neutral and to the point. That said, I did view my OEC with an IS to make my final selection so I am particular about light return in addition to the pattern and other nuances of old cut stones. I think it would be beneficial to demand light return analysis for old cut stones, only that it will have a different set of "ideal" than other types of RB, due to its cutting style.

I don't completely disagree. IS and ASET could be helpful for identifying things like strong areas of leakage, or other major problems. But then, things like this will typically be eye-visible and macro-photo visible anyway, with regards to old cuts. The danger you get into is how do you train consumers to evaluate the IS image and interpret it for "styles" of light return, versus "amount" of light return? More is not always better for old cuts (or even possible). The appeal of an old stone is HOW it plays with the light, then how that specific light play appeals to the individual, in combination with the myriad facet patterns available. It's impossible to quantify or form any sort of majority rules for old cuts.

One of my favorite OEC's EVER was mostly green on an ASET, with some pink, if memory serves. Very little red. But it was gorgeous in person. For you, Chrono, that particular flavor of OEC might not have been to your taste, but I loved it above stones that would have had more "mainstream" or "generally acceptable" ASET results. Was I wrong to love it? Did the consumer who bought it from me get ripped off because it wasn't a "top performer" per the very narrow parameters of modern RB cut standards or of a handful of PSers, or based on what is says on the side of the ASET scope box? Of course not - the consumer who bought it was over the moon for it, just like I was. And she was no uninformed noobie. Truth be told, I'd buy that OEC back in a heartbeat - it's the prettiest one I've ever seen, and every single day I regret selling it.

The danger with trying to apply ASET or IS technology for old cuts is that you will convince consumers to exclude many beautiful stones in favor of those that "perform" like, what, an AVR (then why not just get a repro stone to begin with?) Or perform to the standard of what Chrono likes most? Or AGBF? Or...who?

Connecting with a specific old cut is about so much more than light return for most people. ASET and IS are great tools for those who want to apply them to find a specific type of old cut, but convincing consumers that they should demand these tools would require some type of evaluation criteria to judge them against, and what's beautiful in an old cut to me will differ from what's beautiful to the next 10 people. Believe me, old cut selection is extremely personal and subjective. Who gets to decide which criteria make for a "superior" old cut? That is the problem. Lay out 50 OEC's and each one will look materially different. They are a completely different ballgame from RB's.

 

[Karl_K]

Something else that has changed from the old days is back then there was a lot of ACA is the best, gog is the best and so on and so forth and little to no education as to why.
The amount of cheer leading is way down.
I worked very very hard to change that and today's prosumers reflect that.
Educate the consumer and let them make up their own mind don't force feed them one brand is the best.
If someone loves one of the lower overall light return diamonds and they make an educated selection that is a win in my book.
Education and making an informed decision has been my goal from day one on PS.
A lot of my fighting with trade members was over that very subject in the early days, more than a few said its too complicated for consumers to learn beyond the basics. Well we all proved them wrong and the most of the worst offenders are history on PS. A few came back with their tails between their legs and some failed and some made it back in. There were a few that encouraged it and they are for the most part still very successful here.

I don't think its fair to say that vendors forced anything on anyone, the consumers made an informed decision and drove the change which they responded too for the most part.

 

[chrono]

Erica,
Not all consumers know how to read mush areas, fish eye and the like from a video or photograph, so having an IS would make it easy for the layperson to pick that out quickly and with confidence. I think when it comes to old cuts, it needs its own set of interpretation, much the same way it is done for Fancy shapes.

From your post, it sounds like you are very much in the same camp as David of DBL when it comes to diamonds - he puts very little stock into IS and ASET, preferring to judge each stone on its character. If so, then why is cut King for modern RBs? Why not just buy what your eyes like and all the quirks that go with it?

 

[ericad]

Erica,
Not all consumers know how to read mush areas, fish eye and the like from a video or photograph, so having an IS would make it easy for the layperson to pick that out quickly and with confidence. I think when it comes to old cuts, it needs its own set of interpretation, much the same way it is done for Fancy shapes.

From your post, it sounds like you are very much in the same camp as David of DBL when it comes to diamonds - he puts very little stock into IS and ASET, preferring to judge each stone on its character. If so, then why is cut King for modern RBs? Why not just buy what your eyes like and all the quirks that go with it?

I consider old cuts to be more like fancies and I do agree with David frequently when it comes to everyone's right to love the look of a stone even if it may not be "cream of the crop" according to one standard of beauty (max light return). I have no clue how this attitude translates to RB's because that's not my market and I don't care about RB's the way I do about old cuts. But I do believe it's true for fancies, most definitely.

The way I look at IS and ASET is that research has shown that "most" people prefer maxiumum light return in their RB's, so if you're buying online and want the greatest chance for a sure thing, choose a stone that has this type of IS (or HCA, or whatever tool one is recommending) performance because it's easy and will probably be pleasing to your eye. But that doesn't mean that an RB with different performance qualities is guaranteed to be ugly and an utter waste of money, right? That would be absurd. And let's face it - RB's are pretty cookie cutter in that they're generally repeatable and produced in very high volumes. Old cuts and fancies are different.

And I think you overlooked the part where I said that IS and ASET could be helpful when it comes to weeding out major problems like strong areas of leakage. And I frequently see people on PS pointing these problems out on macro pics of old cuts, so they definitely are visible in images. As for "mushy" - what is mushy to you? What does mushy mean to someone else? Does mushy mean leaky under the table? Or does it mean less distinct facet patterning under the table? Two completely different things, so which is it? And does everyone on PS who uses the term "mushy" adhere to the same definition? Who will be the person that defines "mushy" in terms of how it's applicable to an old cut under an IS? And what degree of "mushiness" is acceptable...zero? 10%? Who gets to define the parameters of "beauty" for old cuts under the scope? You? Jon? Yoram? Me?

Sure, an ASET or IS can help online shoppers eliminate duds of any cut including antiques, but most higher end old cut dealers won't stock duds to begin with, or if they do, they will be honest in how they represent such stones when a buyer comes looking. That's what things like comparison photos and videos are for. Good vendors will do that for you, so that you can compare several stones against each other. To me, that's far more valuable in the selection process than a static IS image which only shows light performance from a single face up view. What about when the stone is in motion, or the way the light plays off of that tall ring-pop crown and tiny table and all of the millions of angles you'll view on a given day? And for those buying on the secondary market or via ebay, can they demand IS images from those sellers? Of course not. So there will never be consistency there. The old cut niche is still struggling with consistency in simple grading, let alone anything else, lol.

I'm all for consumers buying these tools and using them themselves to help with old cut selection. I don't think it can hurt as long as they understand what they're seeing and how that translates into the uniqueness of old stones. I would encourage PS'ers to take this step and empower consumers with knowledge and tools and info about what the results mean. But as far as old cuts go, there's no "gold standard" or even any info out there for people to use. We have a long way to go before we can "demand" that vendors supply scope images for old stones - we must first determine how to interpret these images and what they are to be used for. To weed out major problems or to determine a criteria for beauty? Again, two very different applications.

ETA - case in point, I know and very much respect Dave Atlas. He once created an OEC criteria "checklist", so to speak, to help people evaluate quality of cut for OEC's. I've tried using it, and so have several of my clients. The problem? Try to find an OEC that isn't all over the place with regards to the various specs measured by this cut scale, which arguably is suited for Dave's specific personal taste. Most stones will have parameters that fall into more than one of the cut grades, from excellent to poor (not sure if those are the labels he uses, I don't have it in front of me), or whatever the categories are. This gets frustrating for people. Depth and table are in the excellent column, but other parts of the stone are average or poor. But the diamond is beautiful and I love it. What does that mean for me? Do I buy it? Do I pass? Is it well cut? Is it poorly cut? I can see the same thing happening if we attempt to apply IS or ASET to old cuts.

 

[AGBF]

Could you please expand on the idea that the increasing popularity of antique cuts started within the diamond industry? This may be a poor analogy but a lot of fashion trends actually start 'on the street' as it were, could the same not be said of antique cuts?

I do not really have any idea where the trend towards vintage cuts began. It may have been with consumers; with vendors; or in some relationship between the two.

The issue that has irked me and which made me start this thread was not that consumers turned from preferring round brilliants to preferring vintage cuts. (Not that all consumers have, of course.) The issue that irked me was not even that a few diamond merchants went into a smoky room and conspired to push vintage cuts over round brilliants. (It may have crossed their minds that this could be an alternate strategy if sales ever fell, but sales are not falling. Sales in China and India are wonderful. So this isn't the only way that they could make money selling diamonds.)

The issue that has irked me is that many of the diamond vendors selling right here in the United States to us were touting their scopes and discussing light leakage and scaring every new young man who came in here looking for a diamond with which to get engaged lest a diamond he picked didn't turn the correct color on a machine. They were monopolizing the many diamond boards that used to exist on the Internet. And now they are silent as consumers say that vintage stones with unmeasured light return are gorgeous.

Why can vintage diamonds be gorgeous with no light return while round brilliants have to go through all kinds of machines? What has happened, I asked? And I postulated that diamond prices rose. Actually, I quoted some other Pricescopers like Karl, as saying that diamond prices rose. So the merchants decided to sell bigger, lower color stones.

And I can believe that they (vintage stones) are not all ugly. Why should they be?

The two bolded statements are where you're gonna lose a lot of people.

They are inflammatory exaggerations, and it's generally not productive to try to have a conversation with someone who has already made up her mind that people's love of old cuts is part of a trade-wide conspiracy, and that old cuts offer zero light return.

I understand that your point is with regards to RB's and the movement towards light return as a measure of beauty, and the potential ulterior motives of dealers in general, but perhaps a more approachable way to ask the question is:

Why does light return matter so much for RB's, to the point of being critical in the selection process, yet genuine old cuts (excludes modern precision cuts) seem to be immune to the same light return criteria? Should consumers demand light return analysis for old cuts too, or do we need to reevaluate our zeal with regards to light return analysis on RB's?

See what I did there?

And my response to that question would be that maximum light return is not the only measure of beauty, and by applying it as a selection criteria for old cuts would be a great disservice to consumers because the beauty of an old cut is not balanced upon light return, but a combination of structure, light return, shape, and many other factors. If max light return was a significant measure of beauty for old cuts, people would only buy AV's and other new precision repro stones. Yet there are many who have seen both and PREFER the antique stones, even with increased leakage and lower symmetry/precision. Their appeal is impossible to quantify. And that's ok.

Erica, I really do not think you understand what I am saying or why I am saying it. I do not mind "losing people" as I am not selling anything. I have been bothered by something and I wanted to bring it up. Now I have.

AGBF

 

[ericad]

This thread has really got me thinking about things in a way I haven't before. I mean, CAN we apply these tools to old cuts? If so, how?

Let's assume we're using ASET and treating old cuts like fancies. Client asks me for an image and, assuming I can even figure out how to take a decent pic, they post it on PS. Let's say it's an old cushion with mostly green, some red, teensy bits of blue and some areas of clear leakage. This is typical of what I might see if I look at an old cushion under an ASET.

So she posts it on PS and I can imagine her getting results like this:

PSer #1: "I think it looks amazing!"

PSer #2: "Not enough red for my taste - too much green."

PSer #3: "Too leaky for me. Pass."

PSer #4: "That looks just like the ASET for my cushion, and I ADORE it! I think you should go for it - my stone is amazing! It had a little leakage here and there, but most old cuts do, and I never see it in person."

PSer #5: "I see some blue bits. That's obstruction. I would be worried about that - ask the vendor."

PSer #6: "Gorgeous! A dream stone!"

PSer #7: "The stone looks a tad tilted - can you request additional ASET pics? Plus post some macros and video clips so that we can see what it looks like in person. Tough to say from the ASET. You know how old cuts are."

PSer #8: "I'd never want a stone like that. Get an AVR instead."

PSer #9: "LOVE!!!"


My head is spinning just trying to imagine it! And where does that leave my buyer? More confused than ever. Because most of the people responding are judging the ASET based on modern cut standards because there's no standard for old stones, and ASET is a tool that's primarily marketed for modern goods. And if we apply what's perceived as "lower" standards to old stones, then that's saying that old cuts are "lesser", which they are not. Many people PREFER their look over new repro cuts, so obviously max light return is not the be-all, end-all for old cuts. The demand for old stones is strong and it's only getting stronger as supplies dwindle (too many being recut into repro stones over the past couple of years, especially cushions and OMC's, which are practically extinct.)

Frankly, I don't know the right answer, consumers will have to decide and vendors will follow. But as a frequent consumer myself (after all, I do purchase old cuts all the time, both for personal and professional reasons, and only buy for the store something that I myself would want to wear), I'm trying to see where an ASET would help me and the only thing I'm coming up with is as a rejection tool for stones with MAJOR flaws (for which my eye is trained enough that this is moot), or to possibly quickly evaluate stones at trade shows, where the lighting is usually god-awful. I could see that maybe being helpful. But again, I can usually weed through them quite well with just a loupe, and half the time the stones are not loose anyway.

For consumers though? I just don't see it. But I'm willing to roll with the punches and keep an open mind.